Why are many small branches better than big central libraries?

Question

Most years my local library system (Queens NYC) goes through a process where:

1. extreme budget cuts threatened
2. library threatens to close all neighborhood branches on weekends and one or two weekdays
3. many protests
4. some money appears
5. small cuts

My question. If it comes down to cuts, why is it not better to close some branches entirely and keep the others open more hours with more books. I can walk to three libraries from my home. It seems like it would be better to have fewer branches and have them open more. Or even just have fewer central libraries. But this never gets proposed so there must be a reason.

Answer 1

What if the same were said for other public spaces/facilities? Like, isn't Central Park enough of a park for Manhatten, why would they need others? Or, one or two post offices for Queens is plenty, right? etc etc.

Libraries are not just a place for books and as public spaces become increasily rare, they are sometimes the only space where communities can come to gather.

Practically, I think generally when faced with potentially big budget cuts, most librarians would rather give up some services than an entire branch, even if they're little ones far-flung from downtown's city hall. It takes decades for a community library to be built planning-, budgeting-, and building-wise. Once a branch is gone, re-purposed into (most likely) some other local gov't space, the odds of ever getting it back is close to nil.

Library hours and staff, on the other had, can fluctuate quite a bit and still bounce back fairly easily once lean years have passed.

Answer 2

Having many small branches is better than having big central libraries because some patrons can't afford public transit, let alone a privately owned vehicle. To centralize library services would mean that some parents could no longer walk with their children to the library, which would deprive those kids of cultural resources that could help them rise above the poverty in which they're growing up. Better instead to have small branches in every neighborhood (and transfer requested books from one branch to another) so that the public library is not, in effect, restricted to those who are rich enough to travel downtown.

Answer 3

I assume "better" really means "more useful."

One answer can be that the neighborhood branches meet the presumably-less-sophisticated needs of the communities they serve. For these people the large central and regional libraries are perhaps intimidating, and the local branch has most of what they need on hand along with people who can help get the information they need from those other places when necessary.

Answer 4

Short answer: Local politics. We are facing a similar budget issue at my library, where the central library and 10 branches serve a population of about 150,000. The branches are useful for a geographically sprawling city, but they are currently open at such minimal and bizarre hours that they shouldn't be described as fully functional libraries. Some of them were opened in locations that are very near to other branches, and consolidation would be a very feasible option.

However, every time someone proposes closing a branch, the residents in part of town make their disapproval known, and the branch is kept open for political reasons. It's not a question of not wanting to close the branches, or not thinking that resources are stretched too thin with too many locations and not enough staff/funding. With budget cuts looming once more, my director has presented the mayor with a plan to close two to three branches, saying that we can't keep them open with the budget as it is projected--throwing down the gauntlet, as it were. We'll see what the response is.

Answer 5

Often, local politics will keep a small branch open when it seems redundant or little used. It's a feather in their cap to keep it open.